Help me understand...”Modest Fashion”

The term ‘modest’ forces a patriarchal agenda onto sartorial choices which could be driven by any number of different factors, thus reinforcing cultural assumptions of the female body as pornographic image.

You can't run in heels, dolly shoes, platforms, flip flops etc

I beg to differ.

Definitely can run in flip flops and heels (11th floor flat that you had to run up the stairs to because the lift was always broken and if you dawdled you were likely to be mugged)

“ Why would knowing what someone else's body shape was make you uncomfortable?”
It’s them pesky “urges” again......

Sorry - and for clarity I don’t mean ‘and therefore wantonly provoking men’s uncontrollable urges’ but rather ‘presenting themselves as a decorative object for the male gaze’. See the various furores about women being required to wear heels in professional contexts.

upfield I do hear what you’re saying, and I agree that there is a certain amount of the tediously woke in the trend towards a less overtly (I say ‘overtly’) male-centred way of dressing. Where I disagree with you is in what appears to be your inherent suspicion of any such dressing.
In this context I think it’s helpful to consider fashions in footwear. Where do you site the widespread adoption of trainers? To me, it’s about women refusing to be crippled by the heels which incapacitate and hence infantilise them, and moreover which compel a gait involving exaggerated movement of hips and bottom.

It's an old fashioned term, seems to be aimed at women, specifically religious women. I associate the word with shame.

I have no need to seek modest clothes out, I can pick out sensible clothes for myself.

Sounds like a choice made by someone else.

No problem dressing modestly, as frieda said, they and most people dress like that usually on a working day, and socially.

Young and (not so young) grownups like to flaunt it when the weather is warmer. That is a natural response, healthy even.

But the real flaunting can be seen at Gay Pride. The trend there is definitely not modest

I mean I get it, I really do. In a porn saturated culture, this desire of women to be left the fuck alone for five minutes from the barrage of sleazy dms and dick pics, plastic surgery ads and the latest trends in sexual abuse masquerading as kinky sex, I can totally sympathize with that. But if that's indeed what it's about, I don't think the label 'modest' is doing women any favours, it's defeatist.

Grunge gave us the kinderwhre style (see Courtney Love). It's probably not the best example.* Yes, I already mentioned that with the nightie example. There were sub-styles within it but it was mainly covered up. In any case, at least dressing as a 'whore' was making an attempt to challenge the patriarchal rules set up by men and throw it back in their faces. The term 'modest' positively embraces patriarchy.

Maybe they disguise the fact they have arms and legs, and a face.

Grunge gave us the kinderwh*re style (see Courtney Love). It's probably not the best example.

Whre or biblically modest seem to be the two options they are offering to women. Meanwhile men go about their day in comfortable clothing, not being judged, not having to think about it and not being self conscious* about what they are wearing.

Why would knowing what someone else's body shape was make you uncomfortable?

"We’d rather

1. not draw attention to our bodies
2. save knowing exactly each other’s body shape for each other
3. not make anyone else feel uncomfortable

It’s come out of biblical principles, although it’s not spelt out in the bible."

Adam and Eve and their fig leaves?

I remember grunge fashion which, besides a few nighties worn as outerwear, was definitely not catering to the male gaze. Long dresses with DMs and layers, tartan shirts and jeans. The difference is it was assertive about not being a slave to patriarchy and was associated with feminist music movement 'Riot Grrrl' (even if a lot of girls just wore it because it was 'in'). The difference between that and this displaying your purity in your clothing movement and humbling yourself in the hope of gaining respect couldn't be more startling. I think it's a reaction to pornified culture, pressure for plastic surgery etc. and maybe some women using this label are just dressing for themselves, but the label is still regressive. I do see it (the label and it's embrace) as a woke attempt to elevate the most sexist elements of religious culture in the name of virtue signalling, by those who do identity politics by numbers and haven't done any analysis of its underlying sexism.

Because its become a fashion trend generally now.

What’s the value in you and your husband dressing ‘modestly’?

We’d rather

1. not draw attention to our bodies
2. save knowing exactly each other’s body shape for each other
3. not make anyone else feel uncomfortable

It’s come out of biblical principles, although it’s not spelt out in the bible.

Because there's an awful lot of rich Muslim women who love fashion, and high end fashion particularly

So why have Primark and Top Shop etc jumped on the band wagon

And obviously non Muslims are free to buy it and do! But the original 'modest fashion' tag was designed to appeal to religious women.

Because there's an awful lot of rich Muslim women who love fashion, and high end fashion particularly.

It's a financial decision to appeal to the Muslim pound

Why ?

Wouldn’t that mean they are ignoring 95% of the population

There are going to be an awful lot of fashion stores going to the wall in that case.

Did notice the tent dresses in Primark a month ago.

In there at the weekend and it looks like they haven’t sold one.

I come from I would say the biggest demographic with money to spend and we are not spending it because they don’t market to us.

It's a financial decision to appeal to the Muslim pound.

I have never had the problem before finding a short sleeved t. shirt whatever time of year.

Summer or winter I never wear anything other than short sleeves.

I don’t own a coat mainly because I prefer to wear hoodies where I can shove the sleeves up above my wrists.

I cannot bear things around my neck or wrists.

Equally I have never dressed “for the male gaze”.
I think most women dress for themselves they don’t look at a dress and think about how many men they are going to pull in something with short sleeves or a neck line that doesn’t begin just below the chin.

Ah I fondly remember lots of discussion in my 'equality and diversity' classes of 'modest dress'.

Things like neither of my grandmothers ever wore trousers because it was 'imodist', that in the US some fundamentalist Christian and some Jewish groups in the UK women are expected to wear skirts that are below the knee but not too long.

Whether it includes hair covering, either sometimes or always.

And then sports and swimming.

And usually ending with the idea that 'modest' can mean anything.

As I said upthread, I think there is a genuine and laudable fashion moment going on which is about not dressing for the male gaze but which is often (wilfully?) confused with the entirely unlaudable ‘modest’ dressing. I don’t find the preponderance of long-sleeved T shirts in Primark sinister - it’s winter FFS - in the way that I would find racks of headscarves.